Background: Self-help eHealth interventions provide automated support to change health behaviors without any further human assistance. The main advantage of self-help eHealth interventions is that they have the potential to lower the workload of health care professionals. However, one disadvantage is that they generally have a lower uptake. Possibly, the absence of a relationship with a health care professional (referred to as the working alliance) could lead to negative expectations that hinder the uptake of self-help interventions. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) identifies which expectations predict use intention. As there has been no previous research exploring how expectations affect the adoption of both self-help and human-supported eHealth interventions, this study is the first to investigate the impact of expectations on the uptake of both kinds of eHealth interventions. Objective: This study investigated the intention to use a self-help eHealth intervention compared to a human-supported eHealth intervention and the expectations that moderate this relationship. Methods: A total of 146 participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 conditions (human-supported or self-help eHealth interventions). Participants evaluated screenshots of a human-supported or self-help app–based stress intervention. We measured intention to use the intervention-expected working alliance and the UTAUT constructs: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence. Results: Use intention did not differ significantly between the 2 conditions (t ₁₄₂=–1.133; P=.26). Performance expectancy (F _1,140=69.269; P<.001), effort expectancy (F _1,140=3.961; P=.049), social influence (F _1,140=90.025; P<.001), and expected working alliance (F _1,140=26.435; P<.001) were positively related to use intention regardless of condition. The interaction analysis showed that performance expectancy (F _1,140=4.363; P=.04) and effort expectancy (F _1,140=4.102; P=.045) more strongly influenced use intention in the self-help condition compared to the human-supported condition. Conclusions: As we found no difference in use intention, our results suggest that we could expect an equal uptake of self-help eHealth interventions and human-supported ones. However, attention should be paid to people who have doubts about the intervention’s helpfulness or ease of use. For those people, providing additional human support would be beneficial to ensure uptake. Screening user expectations could help health care professionals optimize self-help eHealth intervention uptake in practice. Trial Registration: OSF Registries osf.io/n47cz; https://osf.io/n47cz

Background: There is an urgent need to find new approaches that improve long-term adherence to a healthy lifestyle for people with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Deposit contracts (a financial incentive in which the participant deposits own money) are inexpensive and effective, but acceptability among CVD patients is unclear. This study investigated the acceptability of a deposit contract intervention for physical activity among CVD patients. Methods: We approached CVD patients through the Harteraad patient panel of the Dutch CVD patient organization and asked them to fill in an online survey. In total (N = 659) CVD patients with a mean age of 66.2 years completed the survey. The survey assessed acceptability of deposit contracts, responses to a concrete example of a deposit contract for physical activity behavior change, and suitable moments for implementation. Results: Overall, half of the participants (45.6%) confirmed needing extra commitment to maintain lifestyle change. Yet, a small part of the sample was convinced by the idea that losing money could be motivating (18.8%) and indicated that they would be willing to deposit money themselves (13.2%). Responding to a concrete example of a deposit contract for physical activity, a quarter of the sample (26.2%) reported there was a chance they would participate. Furthermore, 27.1% of the participants found the deposit contract effective and 27.4% found it acceptable. Exploratory analyses showed that a subgroup of younger and lower educated participants responded more favorably. Opinions on when to start with a deposit contract were mixed. Conclusions: Because acceptability was generally found to be low, future research should also investigate strategies to leverage commitment principles for CVD patients without a cash deposit requirement. When deposit contracts are offered to CVD patients in practice, we recommend offering them as an optional, additional element to existing interventions that patients can opt-in to.